can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL

Basically, LeMond is suing Trek, claiming that Trek breached the contract they have for distributing LeMond bicycles in response to pressure from Lance after LeMond started talking about doping in cycling and involving Lance in the discussion. Trek has countersued for... something. Lance is posting snarky tweets. And lawyers are making gobs of money.

I'm more of a Greg fan than a Lance fan, and I happen to believe Greg's getting what he deserves. Sorry, you don't bit the hand of your business partners in public. And to be fair, Lance's tweets are snarky. If he had any class he'd just say, "The matter is in litigation and I am not at liberty to discuss it."

Yes. But he stops just short of slanderous accusations. Lance may or may not have cheated but no one has ever proved it. Greg looks bitter and a little unhinged with these lawsuits and public statements.

can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL

ibtl

OP, thanks for posting, great read for cycling fans who are interested in actual journalism.

@Kurogashi, actually it is 6 pages, but it's 6 internet pages, which are not real pages, and it's very interesting, so give it a go.

Below are the prime nuggets I found while reading (I'm more of a GL fan than a LA fan, GL gets my vote as greatest American cyclist)...

================================================

What on its surface is a contract dispute about sales figures and "best efforts" is also a showdown between LeMond and Armstrong.

Trek's legal team has been assisted by Public Strategies Inc, a consulting firm that caters to conservative politicians and is home to consultant Mark McKinnon, who is close to Armstrong

There is considerable dispute over why LeMond never deposed Armstrong himself. At any rate, DiBoise, the new [Lemond] attorney, says that if the case proceeds to trial, he would seek to subpoena Armstrong should Armstrong visit Minnesota, where the trial would take place.

“There are so many people who have died of cycling, and that didn't happen when I was racing," LeMond says, citing the rise of the anemia drug erythropoietin (EPO), which has devastated cycling. "These riders are being used as lab rats. It's not about the doping. It's about all the criminal activity that goes on around it."

Some in the cycling community have painted the LeMonds as paranoid. Their question: why wouldn't we be? They've antagonized three tremendously powerful forces - a large corporation, Armstrong and his legion of yellow-braceleted supporters, and the doping culture that still holds cycling hostage.

One thing is certain: Trek CEO John Burke was put in the unenviable position in 2001 of trying to mediate the dispute between two star cyclists, both of whom brought millions of dollars into his company. Phone calls he made in that effort were tape-recorded, according to the lawsuit, which cites a phone call to LeMond in which Burke is said to have "agreed that the nature of Mr. Armstrong's pressure upon Mr. LeMond and Trek constituted extortion."

For Trek, the case demonstrates the conflicts of marketing in a notoriously dirty sport. While the company forbids doping among teams it sponsors, it also told LeMond that as a contractual partner, he could criticize doping only generally - not point his finger at specific athletes, particularly one that happens to be the company's main cash cow.

In the discovery phase, Trek also gathered what it considers an important piece of evidence: a tape-recorded phone call between LeMond, his attorney, and Betsy Andreu, the wife of Armstrong's former teammate, Frankie Andreu. (Betsy Andreu is one of Armstrong's biggest antagonists; her husband fell out with Armstrong in 2006 after confessing to using EPO while training with Armstrong for the 1999 Tour de France.)

LeMond's original legal team fought hard to keep the tape protected by privilege protections, but DiBoise turned it over this fall. Trek's lawyers played the tape for Herman [Kristin Armstrong’s attorney] prior to the Kristin Armstrong deposition on Oct. 1, and during the proceeding Herman mentioned it, telling DiBoise it indicates that LeMond is "in the business of attempting to extort concessions or money from Trek."

During her deposition, which took place at Herman's office in Austin, Tex., Kristin Armstrong was asked directly about her ex-husband and doping.

"During the period of time that you were living in France or Spain and with Mr. Armstrong, did you ever observe him using any substances to aid his cycling?" asked DiBoise.

Complying with strict instructions from Herman, Kristin Armstrong did not respond to that or 18 other questions, many concerning her ex-husband's past associations, statements, or experiences with drugs.
"She's not going to answer any questions that have to do with this, with Mr. LeMond's 10-year vendetta against Mr. Armstrong," said Herman.

Kristin Armstrong said during the deposition that she didn't know if she was paying for Herman's representation. According to Herman, he has sent Kristin Armstrong a bill.

DiBoise also asked Armstrong if she recalled driving with her ex-husband and the Andreus to meet Ferrari at a rest stop along a highway in Europe. Herman objected to the question and instructed his client not to answer it, and suggested that DiBoise was acting in bad faith. DiBoise was also challenged by Weber, who was present for the deposition.

All told, Herman entered more than 80 objections, mostly related to the form of the question, but other times citing the spousal communications privilege, which in some cases prevents a court from forcing one spouse to testify against the other. Other questions, Herman said, were asked in a manner that "unreasonably annoys or embarrasses or oppresses" the deponent.

On Tuesday, lawyers for both sides will appear before the district court judge to answer questions arising from the briefs each side has filed. Weber, whose final brief in that motion compares LeMond's complaint to an impressionist painting by Georges Seurat, is confident in his argument.

"There's no question about Trek's efforts, in the face of huge challenges, to distribute LeMond bikes," Weber says. "This isn't about doping. Appreciate the timeline. Greg made statements about Armstrong in 2001, and in 2004, and in 2006, and notwithstanding those comments, Trek continued to distribute high-end road bikes."

"This is not just a contract dispute," LeMond counters. "It's about defending myself from people that are out to destroy everything I've done in cycling… I want to hold John Burke accountable. I want to hold Lance Armstrong accountable."

Yeah, all the trash talking aside, the fact that trek sold like 4 lemond bikes in 5 years for all of France does give some basis to his actual case.

The rest is just stupid. He should stick to his factual evidence and hit them where it actually hurts- in the wallet.

I read the article.

So Trek only sold 5-10 Lemond bikes in France in 5 years? Considering how popular the guy is over there, that's pathetic. Scratch that, it isn't pathetic, it is evidence that Trek was not meeting its contractual obligation towards Lemond. Case closed.

And I like how Lance's and Trek's attorneys are connected with ultra conservative PR firms. No surprise there.

This is a joke. LeMond appears to have sued everyone he has ever done business with and now it's Trek's turn. This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.

I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.

I think he's earned the right to live at whatever weight he chooses. Even at his current weight I believe he could out-ride you with one leg tied behind his back.

Originally Posted by Fleabiscuit

I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

Just my opinion...

Lemond -- arguably the greatest American cyclist in history -- isn't going to "go away," nor should he.

Now. If you could turn back the clock, I'm guessing you would ask him to go away after you bought your shiny new bike with his name emblazoned on it, right?

This is a joke. LeMond appears to have sued everyone he has ever done business with and now it's Trek's turn. This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.

I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

Just my opinion...

I agree. You saved me a lot of typing because I was going to say the same.

At least Trek spends a fair bit lobbying for better cycling. They are big contributors to LAB, Bikes Belong and others and are always at the National Bike Summit using their clout with lawmakers to make riding better and get more people on bikes.

It's no surprise that the Burkes are conservative. That says even more to the DC types about the legitimacy of cycling than it would coming from a bunch of crunchy greenies!

Personally, if I did no business with all the companies I find objectionable, I'd be living in an unheated tent in the boonies, with no car, no insurance, no medicines, no electronic stuff, no electricity.......

As for bikes sold in France: if dealers wanted/demanded them, they would have gotten every one they could sell. After all, Trek is in business to make money. I can't see a profit driven company like Trek chosing to not sell a bike just to P someone off.....

I think he's earned the right to live at whatever weight he chooses. Even at his current weight I believe he could out-ride you with one leg tied behind his back.

Lemond -- arguably the greatest American cyclist in history -- isn't going to "go away," nor should he.

Now. If you could turn back the clock, I'm guessing you would ask him to go away after you bought your shiny new bike with his name emblazoned on it, right?

I'm not going to bicker with you because we agree on several things. Lemond is a great American cyclist, a true hero in my book and nothing will ever change that fact. He's the second best American cyclist of all time AFIC. Also, the fact that he is a lawsuit-happy beachball-headed slob would not prevent me from riding a Lemond. They are cool bikes. He could also beat me in a bike race without breaking a sweat on his worst day (even after he puts the hurt on an all-you-can-eat buffet). And I'm guessing he could beat me as soundly in a hot-dog eating contest -but this is just an educated guess.

None of the above change the fact that Lemond is a guy who likes to sue people who do business with him. It appears he has sued everyone who has ever done business with him in the last decade and it appears to be Trek's turn. Also, he has been an outspoken opponent of LA (jealous?), without offering any factual evidence and, like it or not, LA is to Trek what Jordan was to Nike.

Lemond is a disgrace and I think he needs to go away to preserve what's left of the memory of the young innocent looking guy who proved to the world an American could win the greatest bike race in the world...three times!

Lemond and Armstrong share several similarities, except in every instance Armstrong has proven to be superior. Maybe Greg has the right to be angry, LA has surpassed him in every way possible. Let's take a look:

Lemond had one of the best comebacks in TDF history, winning in '89 with 39 shotgun pellets in his body (including 2 in his heart) after a hunting accident...Armstrong has THE best comeback in TDF history winning after beating STAGE 3 cancer.

Lemond has 3 TDF titles...Armstrong has 7 consectuve TDF titles.

Off the bike: Lemond is known as a bitter overweight guy who likes to sue people and make unfounded accusations about LA. Off the bike, Armstrong heads a foundation that supports people with cancer.

I hope Greg has the sense to go away and leave us with the memory of the guy he once was. A real hero, not the sad, bitter, bloated man he has become.